how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
| reply to bluebaron2
Re: People with fake keys can't protect from Sasse Ok say someone took your cd player out of your home (stole it) and then came back a couple weeks later claiming its broke and wants you to fix it...now are you REALLY going to want to fix it?
Same situation, you stole a microsoft product why should the manufacturer help you improve it?
--
"Its better to look stupid for 5 minutes and ask a question, than to be stupid for the rest of your life."4g63.20m.com (textsource.org) | |
vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | said by paranoidxe:
Ok say someone took your cd player out of your home (stole it) and then came back a couple weeks later claiming its broke and wants you to fix it...now are you REALLY going to want to fix it?
Same situation, you stole a microsoft product why should the manufacturer help you improve it?
Someone steals Justins CD key and distributes it across the internet, now the key is blocked and the unwitting justin finds out that he cannot update, but BAM too late he is infected. All of DSLR goes down.
Who is liable then? Microsoft has no responsibility in this case?
Or here is a better one,(as "B" suggested) you buy your computer on Ebay and the key is stolen. You use it for a month and find out you can no longer update your machine. Who is at fault there? The ebay seller is no where to be found.
They made a very poor desicion. IMO. Microsoft has too many machines to simply refuse updates to pirates. The ones that cannot update their machines are going to become a problem for all of the other legitimate users on the internet.
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by vic102482:
Someone steals Justins CD key and distributes it across the internet, now the key is blocked and the unwitting justin finds out that he cannot update, but BAM too late he is infected. All of DSLR goes down.
Who is liable then? Microsoft has no responsibility in this case?
No, of course not. The fault lies with the people who stole from Justin, not with the manufacturer.
I'd expect Microsoft to listen to Justin's explanation, and perhaps give him a new key. The only cases I've heard of suggest that Microsoft tends to believe honest customers. Do you know likewise, or is this a straw horse?
Anyway, I don't think DSLR runs on MS systems  | |
vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | said by dave:
said by vic102482:
Someone steals Justins CD key and distributes it across the internet, now the key is blocked and the unwitting justin finds out that he cannot update, but BAM too late he is infected. All of DSLR goes down.
Who is liable then? Microsoft has no responsibility in this case?
No, of course not. The fault lies with the people who stole from Justin, not with the manufacturer.
I'd expect Microsoft to listen to Justin's explanation, and perhaps give him a new key. The only cases I've heard of suggest that Microsoft tends to believe honest customers. Do you know likewise, or is this a straw horse?
Anyway, I don't think DSLR runs on MS systems
Okay, what about the alternative I posted? Dont you think that is a smarter way to approach the problem. Simply revert the system back to the 30 day trial and refuse to allow the same key to be entered into the system for attempted reactivation.
Is that not a better way to approach the problem?
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
yazdzikPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-26
Honesdale, PA
kudos:1 | reply to dave
said by dave:
I'd expect Microsoft to listen to Justin's explanation, and perhaps give him a new key. The only cases I've heard of suggest that Microsoft tends to believe honest customers. Do you know likewise, or is this a straw horse?
For what it is worth, I generally run debian linux, but had a bomb of e-mails, and one or two .pub files that I needed office to read, while one laptop went to kid, and the other had not arrived. I installed office on a pc, used the oem key, and called m$ and told them why, then waited for the other laptop to arrive, reinstalled office on the MS partition, and, while I had to ring up and explain what I did, telling them I needed to read the files, they, while explaining that this is not legal, were happy to allow me to reinstall, gave me the key, and did so cheerfully.
I know Dave, Steven, Kasia, and a bunch of other people here earn their living coding in one way or another.
Before I let my kids use pirated stuff, I showed them IMs and one picture of one of the people. I asked if they thought it was fair that Kasia's kid should do without something so they could have free music, or free word, or free anything. They bitched and moaned, of course, but, the point is, I have too many IT friends who are out of work, and yet, I cannot always buy exactly the piece of software I need, to say nothing of getting it open source. What is wrong?
This is no place for an open source debate. I am opposed to the DMCA because it contravenes the fourth amendment in matters of probity and warrants. However, hating the DMCA and stealing are two different things, and while I sincerely believe that M$ is a corrupt and vile monopoly, and there ought well be jail terms for monopolists, I cannot condone larceny as a solution to anti-trust violation.
Now, let us presume that someone disagrees me, and has stolen a copy of XP. His actions affect no one but Micosoft. Then, at the introduction of a virus, trojan, or suchlike, we need to examine, at first glance, the orginal cause of the virus.
If the orginial cause is the known fallibility in the OS, then, irrespective of the EULA, if damage were to occur due to negligence, MS is liable for damages. Now, negligence requires due diligence, and, as due diligence implies, nothing is perfect. I can type this in the little window, spell check it in OO, and hope for the best, but, in the end, OO does not know whether I meant "here" or "hear." Is my spell checking due diligence for proofreading the spelling errors? Yes. For control of meaning? No.
However, if an obvious error in homophones or homographs leads one to a meaning of a contract that could not be taken by a reasonable man to be the meaning of that contract, am I liable to the promise? Obviously not.
So, the question of liability for the virus in the first place depends upon the issue of due diligence. If this is resolved in the negative, which indeed, it has been, how could on even begin to assess secondary or tertiary damages, i e, subrogation. Thus, M$, at current writing, is not even responsible for damages caused by ordinary human failure in programming.
Now, let us look at what product patches do, if not remove liability for faults. Since at least w95 there have been updates, &c, and patches, service packs, and so forth, creating a product. The legal question is not one of is M$ demurring liability, but are they merely improving a product.
My favourite example also being cars, the new 2005 mustang will have 300 bhp instead of 260. Now, one can buy a leftover ‘03 for about $22k. The ‘05 will sell at a non-discounted 30 or so, for the same model. How much “improvement” is there, other than horsepower, and how much is styling? If styling were removed, one is paying about eight or nine grand for 40 horses, which could be easily achieved with a $2500 bolt on supercharger and a $350 chip. Not very cost efficient - buy the ‘04. The problem is, M$ prevents that solution not via logic, but monopoly.
How much of the improvement in the service packs is style, and how much real performance? Then, is the virus a matter of style or performance? Ask me when my kid wants to play a shockwave game and I have to reboot into windows. (I am in windows now, and, frankly, typing, it make no difference - OO is OO.
The BMW or mustang, or god forbid, even a lotus, can be driven well or badly, to drive one’s kids to school or rob a bank. Exploiting code imperfections to write malicious programmes has nothing, at least in law, to do with the OS. Microsoft are as culpable for virus as Lotus are for felonies committed in an Esprit.
I hate M$, not for their product, but for their business ethics. To equate ugly and despicable practice with either civil tort or crime, however, is inconsistent with reason.
Thus, their obligation to patch even legitimate copies of XP is more a matter of business modelling than legality. Having done so for more than ten years, I suspect, there is a question of consuetudine artis that would arise should they stop, but this is pure fantasy.
However, this begs the moral question - is it right to permit known bad code to allow exploits that harm people’s computers, swallow bandwidth, and make life unpleasant in general, to proliferate when making the patch available without a key would alleviate the problem.
There is no question that patching security holes is the right thing to do. However, this presumes another inequality, that, were the copies that were pirated sold with keys, there would be no more people employed, and that the fixing of nasty code is part and parcel of the software business, as the improving of gewgaws in car model years is.
Brakes either work to the contractually necessary level, or do not; likewise, code.
To argue that I need an av while running XP is like arguing I need four star petrol for my mustang. It is just that way.
Thus, M$ bases its decision upon law, not the common good. The ugly part about M$ is that when law suits their needs, they use it, when not, well, who the hell has the money to outlitigate them - not even the DoJ.
Since they are under no obligation even to patch faulty code, as long as due diligence has been met, demanding that they tacitly support pirating is as bizarre an argument as I have ever heard.
Should M$ be broken up, punished harshly for an anti-competitive business model? Absolutely. Gates is a bastard whose concept of business is to break his competition fair or foul. I wish him ill, and make no secret of it.
Should he, or any sane person encourage piracy by making its existence less unpalatable to the general public? This is so far from the public interest that it bears not a second thought. Piracy is not only illegal, but creates the very monopoly that the open source movement tries to battle by having a cheap illegal source for programmes, rather than a cheap community designed and legal source - open source. In fact, if only the legal copies of office were in use, there would be such a greater demand for an alternative, that some open source solution would have long since dominated the market. Likewise, web content. If we eliminated the illegal stuff that kids do, companies would have far less incentive to programme IE only HTML, and, in fact, meet real standards.
My daughter’s boyfriend gave her an OEM copy of office. I found out.
He was lucky I only yelled. I would prefer, on one sad level, to have had him, and my own kid expelled from the school. There is no need for such shitty actions when OO is there for the taking. We have become so damned M$-centric because lazy teens would rather pirate M$ than run debian.
Geeks? - these kids know less about coding than I do - they are car thieves, not Ferrari technicians.
I should prefer strict liability and legitimate enforcement of law. Will the Sasser kid go to gaol for a long time? Not long enough. Make him write an open source shockwave player that is the absolute functional equivalent of the M$ compatible version as a condition of his release. He’ll sit in the public garden until computers fit on our fingernails.
Schools? Most prep schools know damned well that have the software on kids’ pcs is warez. Since they have the lawful right to examine the hard drive, they should turn every kid with a fake key over to the authorities.
As soon as illegal M$ became as hard to use as real fedora, there is little question that Porsche would never dare prefer windows for their site.
Breaking up microsoft is a moral and legal good. So is teaching kids that getting away with evil is as ugly on a personal level as a corporate level. When the prevailing morality is that real geeks don’t steal, they write linux drivers instead, we are on the way to create the country the Jefferson founded, not the slums that robber barons built.
-Yazdzik
(Okay, so there was a little open source debate, what can I say - so sue me......spam spam spam spam - oh my god, the comfy chair)
--
Nach mise féin an fear gan chéill A d'fhág mo chíos i mo scórnach? D'fhág mé léan orm féin Is d'fhág mé séan ar dhaoine eile | |
Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to yazdzik.
Very well written.
I like the part about M$ bringing themselves down by tightening up piracy.
I think you are on the right track, if M$ tightens up the "keys" to tight, then M$ will push users to a different Operating System.
It seems to be in the best interest of M$ to tighten, but not too tight, the OEM and piracy. | |
|
